This second appeal assailed the dismissal of a suit for possession and injunction. The court held that concurrent factual findings by lower courts on title and limitation could not be disturbed as no substantial question of law was involved.
The present Regular Second Appeal No. 44/2018 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on : 13th November, 2018 Date of decision : 16th November, 2018
RSA 44/2018
ANIL KUMAR JAIN
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Alok Gupta, Adv.
Versus
PREM CHAND DUBEY & ORS.
..... Respondent
Through
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
RSA 44/2018 Page 1 of 9
plaintiff, arrayed as the appellant herein, had sought the grant of the decree of possession and permanent injunction in relation to the portion shown as store type construction in green colour in the site plan stated to be part of the Property No. 11 situated at Khyber Pass Market, New Wine Shop, Mall Road, Civil Lines, Delhi with a further prayer for grant of mandatory injunction against the defendants arrayed as the respondents directing them to allow the plaintiff arrayed as the appellant herein for causing cleaning in the main whole that had been built and in the store type construction alongwith drainage pipes etc., was dismissed.
RSA 44/2018
Page 2 of 9
his insistence in the year 2007 to avoid any liability the respondent no. 3 vacated the tenanted room as also the store type construction and shifted her residence to another premise but did not hand over the possession of the entire premises including the store type construction which she handed over to defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 who were arrayed as the respondent no. 1 & respondent no. 2 to the present appeal.
2. Whether the plaintiff Li entitled for relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD-1 & 2.
RSA 44/2018 Page 3 of 9
4. Whether the premises in question falls within the properly No.11 or 20, Khyber Pass Market, Delhi onus on both the parties.
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action against the defendant No.1 & 2? OPD No.1 & 2.
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPDs.
7. Relief.”,
that the plaintiff arrayed as the appellant herein had been unable to prove the balance of probability of his late father Sh. Mahabir Prasad Jain or any right, title or interest in the suit property which could entitle him to recover the possession thereof from the defendants no. 1 & 2 and thus likewise was not entitled to the grant of any mandatory injunction as sought by him in as much as he has no locus standi and no legally enforceable right with respect to the suit property. Furthermore, the learned Trial Court also held that the suit property did not fall in Property No. 11 situated at Khyber Pass Market, New Wine Shop, Mall Road, Civil Lines, Delhi and that the defendants no. 1 & 2 i.e. the respondents no. 1 & 2 herein had been successful in proving the balance of probability on the records produced from the records and the witnesses examined from Delhi Jal Board and the License Department, North MCD to indicate that the suit property formed part of Property Bearing No. 20 situated at Khyber Pass Market near wine shop, Mall Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.
RSA 44/2018 Page 4 of 9
RSA 44/2018
“A. Whether the courts below erred in law and failed to appreciate that the status of the defendants no.1 & 2 was only that of unauthorized occupants / trespasser/ encroachers over the plaintiffs land and the plea of adverse possession was not available to them and hence no limitation law applied to the facts & circumstances of the case.
B. Whether the courts below have grossly erred in facts and law and wrongly dismissed the suit/ first appeal of the appellant ?
C. Whether the contents of the written statement filed by the defendants no.1 & 2 could be read in isolation from the Defendants Evidence recorded before the Ld. Trial Court, which comprises material contradictions and concealments done by the defendants no.1 & 2 and none of the defendant's relied upon/ Exhibit documents were proved on record, which hence proved the case of the appellant ?
D. Whether the Ld. courts below have grossly erred in facts and law and wrongly decided Issues no.1 to 6 against the appellant/plaintiff ?
RSA 44/2018 Page 6 of 9
E. Whether the Written Statement filed by defendant no.3, who got proceeded ex-parte subsequently, could be all together discarded/ignored by the Ld. courts below?”
RSA 44/2018 Page 7 of 9
learned Rent Controller, Delhi itself, indicated the locus standi of the appellant herein in relation to the premises shown in the green colour in the site plan - cannot be accepted at all in as much as the learned Rent Controller cannot adjudicate upon the title of the premises and ownership of the same in as much as in terms of Section 50(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended itself, it has been substantially provided to the effect : -
“50(4) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as prevailing a civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any premises to which this Act applies or any question as to the person or persons who are entitled to receive the rent of such premises.”
which makes it apparent that it is the determination of the learned Civil Court which matters in relation to the title of any premises and that the absolute ownership is not a sine qua non for proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended.
RSA 44/2018 Page 8 of 9
ANU MALHOTRA, J NOVEMBER 16th , 2018/ mk
RSA 44/2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a substantial question of law warranting interference in the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts regarding title and limitation.
Whether the civil court determination of title prevails over the findings of the Rent Controller regarding tenancy.
Whether the suit was barred by limitation despite the appellants claim of adverse possession by the defendants.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anil Kumar Jain
Prem Chand Dubey
Smt. John Jois Symon
Anu Malhotra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
